Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1193 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1355NOMINAL INDEXMOHD. TASLIM ALI v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1193BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1194ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and Other Connected Matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1195Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents 2023 LiveLaw...
Citations 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1193 to 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1355
NOMINAL INDEX
MOHD. TASLIM ALI v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1193
BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1194
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and Other Connected Matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1195
Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1196
Pooja Menghani v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1197
ANJURI KUMARI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1198
Rahul Bhardwaj and Anr v. The Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1199
Nikhil Rana v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
M 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1200
MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1201
Mr. Maahi Neil Jaipal (Minor) v. University of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1202
Shri Chintan Bindra Versus DCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1203
SOMDUTT SINGH @ SHIVAM v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1204
MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. DIALMYTRIP TECH PRIVATE LIMITED 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1205
Vishnu Das Through Peherokar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1206
N.K. Sharma v. The General Manager Northern Railways 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1207
Taqa India Power Ventures v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1208
Maj Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagale v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1209
Sri Ganesh Engineering Works v. Northern Railways 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210
Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1211
KIRAN JUNEJA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1212
NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD. v. THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS RIGHTS AUTHORITY AND ORS and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1213
CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1214
S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1215
N v. The Union of India & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1216
S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1217
Citius Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1218
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1219
ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220
Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1221
PCIT Versus M/S Inductis India Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1222
Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1223
SAIL v Uniper Global Commodities 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1224
Ravi Gupta v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1225
CASTROL LIMITED & ANR. v. VOLTRANIC INDIA LUBRICANTS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1226
SMT. VIMMI CHAWLA v. DEEPAK SETHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1227
SHARIQ v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1228
Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1229
MASTER SINGHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1230
Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1231
Arpit Bhargava and Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1232
KOHLI SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHI SPORTS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1233
NARENDER JAIN & ANR v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS and Other Connected Matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1234
Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v. LDD Bioscience Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1235
New Delhi NatureSociety v. Director Horticulture DDA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1236
THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS LAW FIRM (REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATE ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1237
CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. CITY NEWS NETWORK & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1238
SMT. RUBINA & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1240
VICKY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1241
Divender v. LG of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1242
Vikas Malhotra v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1243
CIT Versus Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1244
FAIZY KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
KESHAV PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1246
MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1247
VINEET JHAVAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1248
Defsys Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India, LPA 672/2023 (and connected matter) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1249
J.S.R. Constructions v. NHAI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1250
Sanjiv Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1251
AWADHESH YADAV v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1252
Kanta v. Gurvinder Kapoor & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1253
BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1254
Shourya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1255
LAMBODER JHA v. GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1256
CIT Versus Cairnhill Cipef Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1257
SHARAD VASHISHT GENERAL SECRETARY W ONE DESU ROAD MEHRAULI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1258
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. BRIJESH SHUKLA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1259
House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. House of Pathology Labs Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1260
Umaxe Projects Pvt Ltd v. AIR Force Naval Housing Board 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1261
Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262
Havells India Limited v. Polycab India Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263
DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1264
Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1265
PCIT Versus Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1266
Subhajit Dutta v. Principal District and Sessions Judge (South Delhi), Saket Courts Complex, and Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1267
ATT SYS India Pvt Ltd Estex Tele Private Limited Consortium Versus The Commissioner Goods And Services Tax Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1268
Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax Act & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1269
Neeraj Paper Marketing Ltd. Versus Special Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, Gnctd & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1270
AMAZON WHOLESALE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, NEW DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1271
PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL DELHI AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1272
ovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1273
Dr Suman Gupta v. Ravinder Pratap & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1274
SHANKAR @ GORI SHANKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1275
Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276
Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1277
PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1278
IOCL Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1279
BINEET SINGH BISHT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1280
Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Agro Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi- East 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1281
Indusind Bank Limited Versus Department Of Trade & Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1282
VIREN SINGH v. MADHUP VYAS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1283
TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1284
ABC v. XYZ 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1285
VISHAL YADAV v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1286
Court in its own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1287
GOOGLE LLC v. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1288
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1289
INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS v. WORLDDEVCORP TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1290
MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1291
Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1292
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL & ANR. v. ARYAN KUMAR THROUGH FATHER RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1293
DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1294
PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1295
HUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH AND CO. KG. v. SANDEEP ARORA TRADING AS ARRAS THE BOSS & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1296
U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1297
NARENDRA TYAGI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO) 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1298
Usha Bansal v. Genesis Finance Co. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1299
INDIWAR PARIJAT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1300
PCIT Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1301
ARIF v. STATE and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1302
MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1303
PCIT Versus M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1304
CIT Versus Hersh Washesher Chadha 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1305
M/S KUEHNE + NAGEL PVT. LTD. v. MR. PREM SINGHEE 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1306
THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v. SHEELA ABHAY LODHA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1307
KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1308
DR. ARUN MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1309
Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1310
ATMARAM SARAOGI v. UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1311
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1312
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1313
NITIN GARG v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1314
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1315
V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v. MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES AND ANR. & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1316
AMRIT LAL WADHERA & ANR. v. SAROJ SUNEJA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1317
SHISHIR CHAND v. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1318
KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1319
Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1320
BHARAT NAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1321
Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1322
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1323
JASPREET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1324
WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. BAJAAR LLC AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1325
PCIT Versus B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1326
Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Versus PCIT 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1327
Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1328
VINOD KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1329
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CRIME-III, DELHI v. SHADAB 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1330
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1331
MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1332
COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1333
TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. KABIR SHANKAR BOSE & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1334
KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1335
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1336
X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1337
NCLT BAR ASSOCIATION THR ITS SECRETARY GENERAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1338
R.K. GUPTA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1339
Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1340
The Hershey Company v. Atul Jalan trading as Akshat Online Traders 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1341
TV Today Network Limited v. Union of India & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1342
QUANTUM UNIVERSITY v. INTERNATIONAL QUANTUM UNIVERSITY FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INC 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1343
HARISH CHANDER @ SURAJ BHATT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1344
AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1345
RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED v. STATE BANK OF INDIA 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1346
SMAAASH LEISURE LTD V. AMBIENCE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1347
BIKRAMJEET SINGH BHULLAR v. YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1348
CHANDNI CHOWK SARV VYAPAR MANDAL (REGD.) v. DELHI POLICE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1349
PARAMEDICAL TECHNICAL STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF MCD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1350
M/S Sethi Sons (India) Versus Assistant Commissioner And Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1351
Triveni Enterprises Limited Versus ITO 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1352
Eden Castle School and Anr. v. Govt. Of Nct of Delhi and Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1353
Indus Towers Limited v. Sistema Shyam Teleserivices Limited 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1354
M/S Aaira Batteries Versus Principal Commissioner Of Department Of Trade Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1355
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Anr v. M/s Hosmac Projects 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1356
NEC CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S PLUS91 SECURITY SOLUTION 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1357
Case Title: MOHD. TASLIM ALI v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1193
The Delhi High Court has flagged rising incidents of kidnapping of minor girls, who are subjected to sexual assault under the guise of marriage, as a result of which they are forced to abandon studies and denied opportunity to pursue careers.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that when a girl is forced to abandon her education due to such incidents, it causes a profound setback not only to an individual but to the society as a whole.
Case Title: BOLT TECHNOLOGY OU v. UJOY TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1194
The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere global reputation or asserted goodwill of a trademark is not sufficient to answer claim of trans-border reputation.
A division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma said that it is imperative for the claimant/plaintiff, who seeks protection of a trademark, to prove and establish the existence of a significant and substantial reputation and goodwill of the mark in the concerned territory.
'Leave It To Law Commission Of India': Delhi High Court Closes Pleas Seeking Uniform Civil Code
Title: ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR and Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1195
The Delhi High Court has closed a batch of petitions seeking introduction and implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in the country, observing that the Law Commission of India is already seized of the matter.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna referred to an order passed by the Supreme Court of India in April wherein it was held that enactment of law lies exclusively within the domain of legislature and that a mandamus cannot be issued to the legislative to enact law.
Case Title: Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1196
The Delhi High Court recently held that when a patent applicant wishes to demonstrate enhancement in therapeutic efficacy in terms of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, the same must be done 'precisely' by filing data before the Patent Office during prosecution of the application.
“The Applicant must ensure that comparative tables, and a clear explanation as to the manner in which the new form of the known substance has significant enhancement in therapeutic efficacy is placed before the Patent Office during prosecution of the application. The same could be in the form of comparative tables, in-vitro and in-vivo data as also clinical trial data,” the court said.
Case Title: Pooja Menghani v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1197
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a banker's challenge to IBBI's rejection of her application to be registered as a Resolution Professional ("RP"), observing that a person's past actions could not be ignored when judging if they are fit and proper for appointment as an Insolvency Professional ("IP").
“The Petitioner has been found guilty of fraudulent practices of violating market integrity and the decision of the Respondent Board to refuse the registration of the Petitioner as an Insolvency Professional on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court cannot be said to be so perverse or irrational warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Magistrate Can't Direct Investigation Mechanically, Application Of Mind Must: Delhi High Court
Case Title: ANJURI KUMARI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1198
The Delhi High Court has said that direction for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be issued by a Magistrate mechanically and must be given only after application of mind.
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed that a Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if all allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence.
Case Title: Rahul Bhardwaj and Anr v. The Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1199
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently closed a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) relating to functioning of the Delhi Tree Authority, noting that a Single Judge Bench of the court was already in seisin of the matter.
The PIL was filed seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondents to perform their duties in a time-bound manner, inasmuch as under Section 4 of the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, the Delhi Tree Authority must hold a meeting once every 3 months.
Case Title: Nikhil Rana v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1200
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav of the Delhi High Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a medical student whose admission was cancelled by Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Science on the basis that OBC status of his caste was not recognized in view of the central OBC list.
The petitioner, who had filed the petition assailing cancellation of his admission to four-year BDS course, urged that the aspect underlying the notice was not raised by the Institute at the time of counselling and certificate verification.
Muslim Mahapanchayat Meeting Can Be Held At Ramlila Ground On Dec 18: Delhi Police To High Court
Title: MISSION SAVE CONSTITUTION v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1201
The Delhi Police has informed the Delhi High Court that it has granted permission to an organization, Save India Constitution, to hold a public meeting (All India Muslim Mahapanchayat) at the Ramlila Ground on December 18.
Taking note of city police's stand, Justice Subramonium Prasad disposed of the organisation's plea seeking no-objection certificate (NOC) to organize the public meeting.
Case Title: Mr. Maahi Neil Jaipal (Minor) v. University of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1202
The Delhi High Court has asked the Delhi University to endeavor to include admission quota for foreign nationals in its newly introduced five-year integrated law courses from the upcoming academic session, as per the varsity's extant regulations.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav however rejected a foreign national's plea seeking admission in the five-year law courses, under the foreign student quota, for the current academic session (2023-2024).
Employee Can't Be Penalised For Non-Deposit Of TDS By Employer: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shri Chintan Bindra Versus DCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1203
The Delhi High Court has held that the employer of the petitioner or assessee, having failed to perform his duty to deposit the deducted tax with the department, cannot be penalized. It would always be open for revenue to proceed against the employer of the petitioner for recovery of the deducted tax.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the petitioner, having accepted the salary after deduction of income tax at source, had no further control over it in the sense that it was the duty of his employer acting as tax collecting agent of the revenue under Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act to pay the deducted tax amount to the Central Government in accordance with law.
Mere Delayed Compliance Of Section 52A NDPS Act No Ground For Bail: Delhi High Court
Case Title: SOMDUTT SINGH @ SHIVAM v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1204
The Delhi High Court has said that though it is desirable that the procedure contemplated in Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, must be complied with at the earliest, mere delayed compliance of the same cannot be a ground for grant of bail.
“The applicant will have to show the prejudice caused on account of delayed compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act,” Justice Amit Bansal observed.
Case Title: MAKEMYTRIP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. DIALMYTRIP TECH PRIVATE LIMITED
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1205
The Delhi High Court has restrained a travel and hotel booking company from using “Dialmytrip” mark in respect of tour, travel, hospitality and other services in a trademark infringement suit filed by online travel company MakeMyTrip.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that the marks "MakeMyTrip" and "Dialmytrip" are confusingly similar with each other and granted ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of MakeMyTrip.
Case Title: Vishnu Das Through Peherokar v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1206
While dismissing a man's appeal against conviction for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl, the Delhi High Court has observed that courts cannot expect witnesses in sexual assault cases to recount case details in same words every time.
“…the statements of such minor victims have to be examined from the lens of delivering justice in accordance with principles of fair criminal trial to accused and victim, and not on the yardstick of strict factual accuracy of words. It is the substance of the testimony which is to be appreciated”.
Case Title: N.K. Sharma v. The General Manager Northern Railways
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1207
The Delhi High Court has held that once a party has agreed to constitute an arbitral tribunal, it cannot turn around and resist appointment of arbitrator on the ground of non-fulfilment of pre-arbitral steps.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta also held that issue of 'excepted matters' requires in-depth examination of the factual matrix, therefore, the same can only be done by the arbitral tribunal and goes beyond the scope of examination permissible under Section 11 of the A&C Act.
A Written-Off Debt Is An Asset, Award Holder Can Enforce At The Location Of Asset: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Taqa India Power Ventures v. NCC Infrastructure Holdings
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1208
The Delhi High Court ruled that a written-off debt constitutes a recoverable asset, affirming the award holder's right to enforce the award at the location of the debt/asset.
The bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held that a debt written off by the award debtor remains a recoverable asset. This pivotal decision solidifies the award holder's entitlement to initiate enforcement proceedings at the location where the debt is owed or the asset is situated, establishing a robust legal precedent in favor of the award holder's enforcement rights.
Case Title: Maj Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagale v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1209
Justice Subramonium Prasad of the Delhi High Court recently allowed a petitioner's plea for permission to carry out a dharna/protest at Jantar Mantar, in exercise of his fundamental right under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution of India.
The petition was filed assailing the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police's rejection of the petitioner's application to conduct a protest at Jantar Mantar from October 25-30, 2023 between 10:00 AM and 06:00 AM.
Case Title: Sri Ganesh Engineering Works v. Northern Railways, ARB.P 609/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1210
The Delhi High Court has held that an arbitration clause that confers on a party the right to nominate 2/3rd of arbitral tribunal violates the principles of 'counter-balancing' as sought to be achieved by the Supreme Court in the landmark judgment in Perkins.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held that a party cannot have the right to nominate the majority of the arbitral tribunal and such an exercises casts doubts on the neutrality and impartiality of the arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: Anil Kumar Gupta v. MCD, FAO(OS) (COMM) 315 of 2019.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1211
The Delhi High Court of Delhi has held that once a petition under Section 34 of the A&C Act has been disposed of by a final order, the Court cannot admit an application seeking to modify such an order.
The bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Ravinder Dudeja set aside an order of the Court wherein the Court had, upon the application of the respondent, modified its earlier order passed under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Title: KIRAN JUNEJA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1212
The Delhi High Court has observed that the principles of natural justice are not “mantras” but foundational precepts concerned with fairness of procedure and the right of a person to respond to the allegations made.
“Ultimately, whether the asserted violation of some facet of natural justice has tainted the procedure adopted by the respondent is an issue of fact and which would ultimately guide courts to consider whether interference is warranted,” a division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Shailender Kaur said.
Title: NUZIVEEDU SEEDS PVT. LTD. v. THE PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY AND FARMERS RIGHTS AUTHORITY AND ORS and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1213
The Delhi High Court has observed that the farmers are to be given full opportunity to oppose any monopoly which may be created by registering of plant varieties under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, as new plant varieties.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that farmers' rights are a pre-eminent consideration that has to guide the approach of the court while administering the provisions of the enactment.
Case Title: CAMPAIGN FOR PEOPLE PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1214
The Delhi High Court has observed that the declaration of rural areas as urban areas is done in furtherance of the pre-eminent purpose of planned development of the national capital.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of a notification issued on May 16, 2017 by Delhi Government's Department of Urban Development, declaring that certain villages which were part of rural areas shall be deemed as urban areas.
Case Title: S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India, ARB. P. 737 of 202
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1215
The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 11 of the A&C Act can sever an illegal/offending portion of the arbitration clause.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that an arbitration clause does not become illegal by mere illegality of the appointment procedure provided therein, therefore, the Court u/s 11 can sever the illegal portion of the award and refer the dispute to arbitration.
Case Title: N v. The Union of India & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1216
The Delhi High Court has permitted a 21-year-old unmarried woman to terminate an ongoing unwanted pregnancy, despite expiry of the period prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (“MTP Act”).
Entire Arbitration Not Invalid By Illegality Of Appointment Procedure: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case Title: S.K. Engineering & Construction Company India, ARB. P. 737 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1217
The High Court of Delhi has held that an arbitration clause does not become illegal by mere illegality of the appointment procedure provided therein.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta held that the procedure for appointment of an arbitrator is clearly distinct and separable from the agreement to refer disputes to arbitration, even if these are contained in the same arbitration clause.
Case Title: Citius Real Estate (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1218
Taking note of a lacuna in the express provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (“Act”), the Delhi High Court has held that Section 54(c) of the Act must be interpreted as being inapplicable to cases where an applicant seeks refund of stamp duty because he was not aware that the stamp paper would be of no “immediate use” within 6 months of its purchase.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1219
The Delhi High Court has said that merely because the wife is earning does not automatically operate as an absolute bar for awarding maintenance by the husband.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta also observed that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance is on a higher pedestal than the wife, since the provision for grant of maintenance or interim maintenance for women and children in various statutes is keeping in perspective the underlying principle under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.
Title: ANISH PRAMOD PATEL v. KIRAN JYOT MAINI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for non-compliance of an order for payment of maintenance.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that the focus of the enactment is on providing immediate and effective relief to victims of domestic violence by way of maintenance or interim maintenance orders, and that the idea is ot to immediately initiate criminal proceedings against the aggressor for non-payment of maintenance and to send such person to prison.
Case Title: Rakesh @ Dalu v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1221
Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar of the Delhi High Court has granted furlough to a prisoner, while observing that personal freedom is a priceless fundamental right, which should only be restricted when necessary in light of unique facts and circumstances of the case.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/S Inductis India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1222
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessee was a debt-free company and there was no need to impute notional interest on outstanding receivables.
Case Title: Iqbal Singh v. Naresh Kumar, OMP(MISC.) 15 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1223
The High Court of Delhi has extended the time period for the completion of arbitral proceedings, despite observing that there was inordinate delay in the completion of arbitral proceedings, on the ground that the proceedings, though protracted, has reached advance stage.
Case Title: SAIL v Uniper Global Commodities, OMP(E)(COMM.) 22 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1224
The High Court of Delhi has held that the Court exercising powers under Section 27 of the A&C Act cannot form an opinion on the relevancy or the admissibility of the evidence for which the assistance of the Court is sought.
Case Title: Ravi Gupta v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1225
The Delhi High Court recently observed that it is crucial to distinguish between legitimate or reasonable expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands made by citizens from the State.
“…undoubtedly the citizens' expectation of protection of their life and liberty by the State is a fundamental aspect of governance in any society. Citizens look to their government to provide safety, security, and a legal framework that safeguards their rights and well-being. However, it's crucial to distinguish between legitimate and reasonable expectations and illegitimate or unreasonable demands when it comes to the role of the State,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma opined.
Case Title: CASTROL LIMITED & ANR. v. VOLTRANIC INDIA LUBRICANTS & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1226
The Delhi High Court has awarded costs of Rs. 1 lakh in favor of Castrol India Limited in a trademark infringement suit filed by it against manufacturing of identical products by the defendant-entity using its registered trademarks.
Title: SMT. VIMMI CHAWLA v. DEEPAK SETHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1227
The Delhi High Court has observed that the seats in MBBS course at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) are not for sale and securing them through unlawful means is immoral and opposed to public policy.
Justice Jasmeet Singh upheld a trial court order dismissing the suit filed by a mother seeking recovery of Rs. 30 lakhs given to an individual to secure admission of her daughter for MBBS course at AIIMS.
Case Title: SHARIQ v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1228
The Delhi High Court recently imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on a litigant for filing a petition alleging unauthorized construction with incorrect description of the property.
Justice Prateek Jalan observed that due care must be taken while filing a writ petition to ensure that the details incorporated in it are correct.
Case Title: Geeta v. Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Board
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1229
The Delhi High Court has allowed a plea for death benefits and funeral claims filed by a building worker's widow, observing that Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Act, 1996 (“Act”) is a beneficial legislation aimed at benefit of construction workers who do not have any form of security.
Title: MASTER SINGHAM v. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1230
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the existing income threshold of Rs. 1 lakh per annum, for admissions under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category in schools in the city, be increased to Rs. 5 lakhs, till an amendment is made by Delhi Government in the 2011 reservation scheme.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav directed the Delhi Government to take a decision as expeditiously as possible to increase the existing threshold income of Rs. 1 lakh per annum to a “commensurate amount” which corresponds to the living standards of the intended beneficiaries of the scheme in the city.
Case Title: Payal Malhotra v. Sulekh Chand
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1231
The Delhi High Court recently observed that dishonor of a cheque given as security attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“NI Act”) and cases where cheques are dishonored for reasons “payment stopped” or “account closed” also fall within the ambit of the provision.
Title: Arpit Bhargava and Anr. v. Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1232
The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to conduct a structural audit of buildings of all hospitals, schools and colleges in the national capital to check their stability during earthquakes.
Title: KOHLI SPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED v. ASHI SPORTS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1233
The Delhi High Court has appointed former judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Nageswara Rao, as a mediator in a suit filed by manufacturer of cricket helmets alleging infringement of its shape mark by a Meerut based entity selling identical products.
Title: NARENDER JAIN & ANR v. ANIS AHMED RUSHDIE (DECEASED) THR LRS & ORS and Other Connected Matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1234
The Delhi High Court has ordered fresh valuation of the market price of an ancestral property of Indian-born British-American writer Salman Rushdie in city's Civil Lines area which was valued by a single judge at Rs. 130 Crores in 2019.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan set aside the 2019 order and remanded the matter back to the single judge to determine the value of the property afresh, in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2012.
Case Title: Bhargava Phytolab Private Limited v. LDD Bioscience Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1235
In a trademark infringement suit filed by Bhargava Phytolab to protect its mark “TUMORIN” against defendant's use of a deceptively similar mark “TUMOTIN”, the Delhi High Court recently granted relief of interim injunction, holding that plaintiff was able to make out a prima facie case of infringement.
Delhi High Court Orders Status Quo On Translocation Of Deer From Deer Park At Hauz Khas
Title: New Delhi NatureSociety v. Director Horticulture DDA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1236
The Delhi High Court has ordered status quo on the translocation of deer from city's Deer Park at Hauz Khas, till further orders.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna passed the order in a PIL moved by New Delhi Nature Society against translocation of about 600 animals, including deer, from the park to city's Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary, without compliance of legal provisions and guidelines.
Title: THE LEGAL ATTORNEYS & BARRISTERS LAW FIRM (REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS ASSOCIATE ADVOCATE) v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1237
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to decided expeditiously and preferably within three months a representation seeking to cancel and ban the license for keeping dogs like Pitbull, American Bulldog, Rottweiler etc. and their cross breeds which are dangerous to public at large.
Title: CABLE NEWS NETWORK INC v. CITY NEWS NETWORK & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1238
The Delhi High Court has restrained a Lucknow based news website from using the marks “CNN City News Network” or “CNN” in a trademark infringement suit filed by CNN news channel.
Title: SMT. RUBINA & ORS. v. THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1239
The Delhi High Court has observed that criminal proceedings in cases involving children cannot be quashed on the basis of settlement between parties as it could contribute to the perpetuation of a culture where rights and dignity of minors are subjugated to negotiation and compromise.
Case Title: M/s Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1240
While dealing with a plea filed by M/s Bennett Coleman, Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court recently observed that the words “other persons” under Section 401(2) CrPC cannot be construed as wide enough to include persons not affected by the order challenged in the revision petition.
Title: VICKY v. STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1241
The Delhi High Court has observed that the judges may often stay aloof from the public, but they do not remain aloof from the societal expectations that offenders of criminal offences should be punished for their wrong doings.
“By maintaining a vigilant approach, the Courts ensure that the pursuit of truth remains paramount, undeterred by outside influences or attempts to compromise the integrity of the legal process,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed.
Title: Divender v. LG of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1242
The Delhi High Court has restrained the city forest department from conducting a “Walkathon” event proposed to be held inside the city's Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary, till further orders.
Case Title: Vikas Malhotra v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1243
While dealing with an application seeking condonation of delay, the Delhi High Court has held that objections in a contested testamentary petition should not be rejected on technical grounds, unless there has been an inordinate delay.
Case Title: CIT Versus Augustus Capital Pte. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1244
The Delhi High Court has held that Explanations 6 and 7 appended to section 9(1)(i) Of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be given retrospective effect.
Title: FAIZY KHAN v. THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1245
The Delhi High Court has recently cautioned its Registry to “keep in mind” the judgments and its practice directions for ensuring that anonymity and confidentiality of the prosecutrix or victim of sexual offences is maintained in judicial filings.
Title: KESHAV PRAKASH GUPTA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1246
The Delhi High Court has observed that filing of chargesheet in a criminal case is not the sole criteria to be taken into consideration while considering the grant of bail to an accused as it has to be coupled with facts and circumstance involved.
Title: MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1247
The Delhi High Court has ruled that neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu Law, in any way, limits the right of a woman to be a Karta of an Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that “societal perceptions” cannot be a reason to deny the rights expressly conferred by the Legislature.
Titled VINEET JHAVAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1248
The Delhi High Court has observed that crime-enables crimes erode trust of the people in online financial transactions platforms which is against the aspirations of an advanced “Digital Bharat.”
Case Title: Defsys Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India, LPA 672/2023 (and connected matter)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1249
In connection with Union of India's suspension of business dealings with Defsys Solutions Private Limited (“Defsys”), the Delhi High Court on Wednesday observed that no suspension can continue indefinitely without show cause notice, especially because even at the time of review, principles of fairness/natural justice are not to be adhered to.
Case Title: J.S.R. Constructions v. NHAI, ARB.P. 753 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1250
The High Court of Delhi has held that a party cannot unilaterally appoint the presiding arbitrator upon the failure of the nominee arbitrators to reach a consensus.
Case Title: Sanjiv Kumar v. The State Govt of NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1251
While dealing with the issue of interception of calls, Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi High Court recently held that in view of the Supreme Court's decision in Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., courts can authorize an investigating agency to obtain voice samples of accused. However, there must be compliance with provisions of the Telegraph Act, 1885.
Title: AWADHESH YADAV v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1252
The Delhi High Court has said that the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, must be implemented effectively, observing that investigations in narcotics cases are often half-hearted for various reasons.
Case Title: Kanta v. Gurvinder Kapoor & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1253
The Delhi High Court recently allowed appeal of a truck driver's widow, observing that denial of her compensation claim on the ground that the driver added peril himself by getting down his vehicle to help another, was “unconscionable” and “patently erroneous”, as well as opposed to purposes of the Employees' Compensation (EC) Act.
Delhi High Court Declares 'Burger King' As A Well-Known Trademark
Title: BURGER KING COMPANY LLC v. VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1254
The Delhi High Court has declared “Burger King” as a well known trademark, considering the long period during which the mark and its variations have been used for fast foods, especially burgers.
Reassessment Proceedings, Senior Officers Like ACIT, PCIT Expected To Apply Mind; Delhi High Court
Case Title: Shourya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus ITO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1255
The Delhi High Court has held that senior officers like ACIT and PCIT are expected to apply their minds to such requests and, only after that, approve the initiation of reassessment proceedings.
Title: LAMBODER JHA v. GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1256
The Delhi High Court has called for a user-friendly ready-to-use handbook in every Police Station across the national capital for accessibility to aid investigations concerning cases of missing children.
Issuing various directions concerning cases related to missing children, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that a standardized checklist must be formulated and maintained at all police stations, providing a comprehensive guide for investigating officers when handling such cases.
Case Title: CIT Versus Cairnhill Cipef Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1257
The Delhi High Court has held that a revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act could not be passed against a non-existing seller entity by invoking Section 163 against the buyer.
Title: SHARAD VASHISHT GENERAL SECRETARY W ONE DESU ROAD MEHRAULI v. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1258
The Delhi High Court has asked the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to explore the possibility of developing parking spaces in the vicinity of Mehrauli area to tackle the problem of traffic jam there.
Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. BRIJESH SHUKLA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1259
The Delhi High Court has discharged a litigant of criminal contempt proceedings initiated against him for calling the Delhi judiciary corrupt, levelling allegations against a judicial officer and using abusive language against him.
Case Title: House of Diagnostics LLP & Ors. v. House of Pathology Labs Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1260
In response to a plea raised by plaintiffs/House of Diagnostics for exemption from advance service of the suit papers on the defendant, the Delhi High Court recently ruled that advance service of suit papers on a defendant, as mandated by Rule 22 of the IPD Rules, is must, unless plaintiff demonstrates that compliance with the requirement would cause irreparable prejudice or irreversibly alter the status quo.
Case Title: Umaxe Projects Pvt Ltd v. AIR Force Naval Housing Board, OMP(COMM) 469/2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1261
The High Court of Delhi has held that mere participation of a party in the arbitration proceeding cannot be deemed to be a waiver under Section 12(5) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Viceroy Engineering v. Smiths Detection Veecon Systems Pvt Ltd, OMP(COMM) 302 of 2019
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1262
The High Court of Delhi has held that technical deficiencies, including pagination and affidavit attestation, do not invalidate petitions under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Havells India Limited v. Polycab India Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1263
In a design infringement suit by Havells, the Delhi High Court has observed that when examining the aspect of design piracy from the point of view of visual appeal, it is the overall impression of the design of the defendant's product, vis-à-vis the suit design, that matters.
“…it is the overall shape and configuration which matters. The Court is not supposed to fragment the shape or configuration of the suit design into minor individual elements and start measuring lengths and breadths in order to arrive at a finding regarding imitation/similarity.”
Title: DIVYAM AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1264
The Delhi High Court has expunged the remarks made by a single judge against a lawyer while dismissing his PIL seeking prohibition on the display of anti-tobacco advertisements containing “graphic or gross images” during films in cinemas, TV or OTT platforms.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna last week accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the lawyer who said that his endeavour was never to promote or support consumption of tobacco in any manner and that he is himself against use of tobacco in any form.
Ensure Public Toilets Are Clean, Hygienic And In Order: Delhi High Court To Authorities
Title: Jan Seva Welfare Society (Reg.) v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1265
The Delhi High Court has directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to ensure that the public urinals and toilets in the national capital are clean, hygienic and in order.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing a public interest litigation filed by Jan Sewa Welfare Society to ensure availability of hygienic public urinals with clean water and electricity supply in the city.
No Incriminating Material Was Found During Search: Delhi High Court Quashes S. 153A Proceedings
Case Title: PCIT Versus Oxygen Business Park Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1266
The Delhi High Court has held that the assessment for the assessment year 2011–12 was finalized on January 20, 2012, and no notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was issued. As such, no assessment was pending on the date of the search action, i.e., October 29, 2013.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that during the search action against the respondent or assessee, no incriminating material was found, and the material in the form of a statement now sought to be relied upon by the appellant or department was recorded subsequent to the search action.
Case Title: Subhajit Dutta v. Principal District and Sessions Judge (South Delhi), Saket Courts Complex, and Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1267
While dealing with an appeal impleading District Court Judges, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the appellant was not entitled to any special privileges based on his claim of being a “Special Constitutional Functionary with the Union of India”, and instead, appeared to be in need of care and protection.
Case Title: ATT SYS India Pvt Ltd Estex Tele Private Limited Consortium Versus The Commissioner Goods And Services Tax Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1268
The Delhi High Court has directed the restoration of GST registration as no opportunity for a hearing was accorded to the petitioner or assessee.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the show cause notice (SCN) does not mention any time or date for a personal hearing. Thus, the petitioner was not afforded a hearing to contest the SCN. The order cancelling the petitioner's registration is void as it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan Polymers Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax Act & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1269
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to reverse the input tax credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 22,14,226 in the petitioner's electronic credit ledger (ECL).
“We do not find it difficult to accept that the petitioner may have found the circumstances intimidating and had, accordingly, agreed to reverse the ITC. We are unable to accept that the reversal of ITC was made voluntarily without any suggestion or encouragement by the officers,” the bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed.
Assessee Coerced To Deposit GST During Search: Delhi High Court Orders Refund
Case Title: Neeraj Paper Marketing Ltd. Versus Special Commissioner, Department Of Trade And Taxes, Gnctd & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1270
The Delhi High Court has directed the department to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner by making a payment of Rs. 23,70,000 in cash along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that payments aggregating to Rs. 28,20,000 were made at 11:49 PM and at 12:38 PM during the search operations. The payments made by it were not voluntary but under compelling circumstances.
Case Title: AMAZON WHOLESALE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Versus CUSTOMS AUTHORITY OF ADVANCE RULING, NEW DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1271
The Delhi High Court has held that Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation, and Echo Dot 4th Generation with Clock are eligible to claim exemptions in accordance with SI. No. 20 of the Notification dated June 30, 2017.
The bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that merely because these devices could, if so chosen by the user, also be used as mere speakers, the same would not justify recognizing their primordial attribute to be that of a speaker alone.
Title: PPK NEWSCLICK STUDIO PVT LTD v. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL DELHI AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1272
The Delhi High Court has recently dismissed a plea moved by news portal Newsclick seeking stay of demand, as per the assessment order of income tax department passed last year, during the pendency of its appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna upheld two orders passed by the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax which dismissed the news portal's application for stay of demand during the pendency of the appeal.
GST Officers Should Not Pressurise Taxpayers To Pay Tax Not Following Procedure: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Lovelesh Singhal Prop Shivani Overseas Versus Commissioner, Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1273
The Delhi High Court has held that it is impermissible for the officers to pressurize the taxpayers to pay tax without following the requisite procedure, notwithstanding that it may be apparent that such tax is due and payable.
Case Title: Dr Suman Gupta v. Ravinder Pratap & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1274
The Delhi High Court has quashed a defamation case filed against Dr Suman Gupta, former Professor and Dean, University School of Law and Legal Studies (USLLS), Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), noting that the case fell under exception 8 (accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person) to Section 499 IPC.
Trial Has To Begin De Novo When Case Is Committed By Magistrate To Sessions Court: Delhi High Court
Title: SHANKAR @ GORI SHANKAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1275
The Delhi High Court has ruled that when a case is committed by the Magistrate to the Court of Session, the trial would have to begin de novo.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the Sessions Court would first frame charges and then proceed with the examination of the witnesses.
Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Divorce To Omar Abdullah From Estranged Wife Payal Abdullah
Title: Omar Abdullah v. Payal Abdullah
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1276
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the plea moved by former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah seeking divorce from his estranged wife Payal Abdullah.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vikas Mahajan rejected the petition moved by Omar Abdullah challenging a family court order passed on August 30, 2016, dismissing his plea for divorce.
Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1277
The Delhi High Court has set aside the final assessment order and the consequent notices and computations that were passed without waiting for the directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) as per the mandate of Section 144C of the Income Tax Act.
Title: PREMAKUMARI v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1278
The Delhi High Court has permitted mother of a Malayali nurse Nimisha Priya, an Indian who is on death row in Yemen, to travel there along with another individual working there, at her own personal risk without any liability of the Union Government or concerned State Government.
Delhi High Court Directs GST Dept. To Pay GST ITC To IOCL
Case Title: IOCL Versus Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1279
The Delhi High Court has allowed the refund of accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) due to the inverted duty structure to Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL).
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the rate of tax chargeable on inputs other than LPG, which are higher than the rate of GST chargeable on bottled LPG. The ITC has accumulated on account of the rate of tax on such inputs being higher than the output supply – bottled LPG.
Title: BINEET SINGH BISHT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1280
The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no room for an individual who endeavours to seek employment in disciplined forces by concealing material fact about his or her criminal antecedents.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Jain observed that there has to be strict obedience towards disclosure about criminal antecedents by anyone seeking employment in disciplined forces.
Roving Inquiry As Per Order Of Special Judge (PC Act) By GST Dept. Delhi High Court Quashes Order
Case Title: Bhagat Ram Om Prakash Agro Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Tax Gst Delhi- East
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1281
The Delhi High Court has quashed the special judge's directions for conducting a roving inquiry by the GST department in the absence of any statutory provisions.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that apart from the directions issued in terms of the order dated April 5, 2023, there were no reasons for the respondent to initiate the search against the petitioners under Section 67(1) of the CGST Act.
VAT Applicable On Sale Of Repossessed Vehicles: Delhi High Court
Case Title: Indusind Bank Limited Versus Department Of Trade & Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1282
The Delhi High Court has held that the sale of repossessed vehicles is subject to the charge of value-added tax (VAT).
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that notices have been issued to the petitioner demanding VAT on the sale of repossessed vehicles and not on the transaction of financing the vehicles at the initial purchase.
Title: VIREN SINGH v. MADHUP VYAS & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1283
The Delhi High Court has observed that it is not oblivious of the ground situation regarding the rampant unauthorized construction allowed by officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in the city “under their very noses” and the “ill motivated selective application of laws”, thereby harassing and tormenting innocent people.
Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice Issued Prior To Date Of Approval Of Resolution Plan
Case Title: TUF Metallurgical Pvt. Ltd. Versus UOI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1284
The Delhi High Court has quashed the income tax notices and orders issued prior to the date of approval of the resolution plan.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed the notices and orders pertaining to the income tax claims of the respondents or department pertaining to the period much prior to the date of approval of the resolution plan.
Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1285
The Delhi High Court has recently said that there is an overlapping of jurisdiction to grant interim maintenance under various enactments which leads to conflicting judgments or orders at different stages between the parties.
“Such conflicting Orders, in the similar facts and without any change in circumstances, under overlapping jurisdiction of different Acts, creates a sense of judicial impropriety and forum shopping, which may not be conducive to the majesty of the Courts,” a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed.
Title: VISHAL YADAV v. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1286
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking postponement of the Delhi Judicial Services Preliminary Examination, 2023, which is scheduled to be held on December 17.
Refusing to postpone the examination date, a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a public interest litigation moved by one Vishal Yadav.
Delhi High Court Transfers Probe Into Attack On Advocates In 2018 To CBI
Title: Court in its own motion v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1287
The Delhi High Court has transferred the probe into the attack on three advocates and members of the Delhi High Court Bar Association in 2018 from Delhi Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna ordered the probe agency to take action in the matter in accordance with law and directed that the entire investigation report be transferred to it within 10 days.
Title: GOOGLE LLC v. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1288
The Delhi High Court has set aside a single judge's order which restrained Google and online travel agency Booking.com from using 'MakeMyTrip' mark, with or without spaces, as a keyword on the Google Ads Program.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Booking.com is a well-known and popular platform offering travel services and that prima facie, it cannot accept that an internet user is likely to be misled into believing that the services offered by it are those of Make My Trip.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1289
The Delhi High Court has ordered that the children room in all District Courts in the national capital must be kept open on every Sundays and second Saturdays between 10 AM to 5 PM, so that visitation with children can also be directed on those days.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that it is a matter of record that District Courts in Delhi are closed on Sundays and Second Saturday and no order for visitation can be passed on those days.
Title: INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS v. WORLDDEVCORP TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1290
The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that words of common English usage cannot be registered as a trademark and no monopoly can be claimed by the registrant of such a mark.
Justice C Hari Shankar said that words of ordinary English usage cannot be monopolised or else, the entire language would be appropriated by a few, which cannot be permitted.
Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1291
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition seeking direction on the Union Government and the Election Commission of India to urgently implement the Women's Reservation Bill, 2023, to ensure the reservation of 33% seats for women in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
Title: Shashvat Nakrani v. Ashneer Grover
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1292
The Delhi High Court has refused to restrain BharatPe's former Managing Director Ashneer Grover from creating any third party rights in the “unpaid shares” which he bought from fintech company's co-founder Shashvat Nakrani.
Title: KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL & ANR. v. ARYAN KUMAR THROUGH FATHER RAVINDER KUMAR & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1293
The Delhi High Court has said that the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws are in the nature of Central Bye-Laws and are not akin to Local State Acts or Regulations.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna observed that when there is contradiction and conflict in the CBSE Examination Bye-Laws and KVS Education Code, the former would prevail.
Title: DR BALWINDER KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1294
The Delhi High Court has upheld the charges framed against former Registrar (Recruitment) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Dr. Balwinder Kumar Sharma, in connection with the paper leak of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Preliminary Examination, 2017.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma said that as per the record, Sharma was in possession of the question paper immediately before the alleged leak.
Title: PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY v. CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1295
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Patent Office is expected to pass final orders after concluding oral hearings within a reasonable period, which cannot be beyond three to six months, depending on the complexity of the case.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that there are strict timelines prescribed in the Patents Act, 1970, and its Rules right from the filing of the request of examination, preparation of examination report by the examiner of patent, consideration of the report by the Controller, issuance of the statement of objections, reply to the statement of objections and the time for putting the application for grant of patent.
Title: HUGO BOSS TRADEMARK MANAGEMENT GMBH AND CO. KG. v. SANDEEP ARORA TRADING AS ARRAS THE BOSS & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1296
The Delhi High Court has cancelled the copyright registration of 'Arras The Boss', obtained by an individual selling perfumes, in a suit filed by German perfumery brand 'Hugo Boss'.
Justice Prathiba M Singh said that 'Arras The Boss' is an imitative mark and artistic work and not an original artistic work.
Case Title: U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd v. C.G. Power & Industrial Solution Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1297
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is not available to a petitioner who, through lack of diligence, allowed its Section 34 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to be dismissed twice for non-prosecution.
Title: NARENDRA TYAGI v. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CPIO)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1298
The Delhi High Court has observed that the correctness of information provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005, or any other dispute or controversy, cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under the enactment.
Case Title: Usha Bansal v. Genesis Finance Co. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1299
The High Court of Delhi has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify challenge to the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that a bare plea of fraud, coercion or duress cannot justify challenge to the Settlement Agreement under Section 34 of the A&C Act.
Title: INDIWAR PARIJAT v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ORS and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1300
The Delhi High Court has observed that an Insurance Company has no contractual or other relationship with transferee of the offending vehicle in a road accident.
“The registered owner cannot absolve himself of the liability by contending that he had transferred the offending vehicle to a third person prior to the date of the accident,” Justice Navin Chawla said.
Case Title: PCIT Versus Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1301
The Delhi High Court has held that the high-end knowledge process outsourcing (KPO) services provider cannot be compared with the information technology-enabled services (ITeS), which fall under the category of BPO services provider.
Delhi Riots: High Court Grants Bail To Two Men, Denies Bail To One In Rahul Solanki Murder Case
Title: ARIF v. STATE and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1302
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to two men and denied bail to one in a 2020 North-East Delhi riots case where a bystander, Rahul Solanki, lost his life due to a gunshot injury.
Justice Amit Bansal granted bail to Arif and Anish Qureshi, who have been in custody since March 09, 2020, observing that the trial is likely to take a long time and they cannot be kept under incarceration for an indefinite period.
Title: MS. YOGAMAYA M.G. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1303
The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking urgent implementation of the “Women's Reservation Bill, 2023” to ensure the reservation of 33% seats for women in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections 2024.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna granted liberty to the petitioner, a lawyer, Yogamaya MG, who withdrew the plea after some arguments, to approach the Supreme Court before which a similar petition has been filed.
Case Title: PCIT Versus M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1304
The Delhi High Court has held that no upward adjustment concerning advertising, marketing, and promotion expenses (AMP) ought to have been made as the comparables chosen by the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) had a net margin lower than that registered by the assessee, Sony India.
S. 69A Of Income Tax Act Can Only Be Invoked Where Books Of Account Are Maintained: Delhi High Court
Case Title: CIT Versus Hersh Washesher Chadha
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1305
The Delhi High Court has held that Section 69A of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked where books of account are maintained.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the assessee is a non-resident Indian, and his source of income in India is interest on bank accounts and interest on income tax refunds. He is not obliged to maintain any books of account in India.
Title: M/S KUEHNE + NAGEL PVT. LTD. v. MR. PREM SINGHEE
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1306
The Delhi High Court has observed that “wilful” disobedience of a judicial order by a contemnor excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability.
“Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with malice or without a justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same,” Justice Dharmesh Sharma said.
Title: THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD v. SHEELA ABHAY LODHA & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1307
The Delhi High Court has observed that the judicial system cannot function if the parties are permitted to resile from the undertaking given by them without any reasons.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that there is solemnity and seriousness attached to court proceedings and parties cannot give undertakings without intending to honour them, or at least, they must make sincere and conscious efforts to comply with the same.
Title: KUNWAR MAHENDER DHWAJ PRASAD SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1308
The Delhi High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on one Kunwar Mahendra Dhwaj Prasad Singh who claimed property rights on the territory of Agra, running between rivers Yamuna and Ganga, to Meerut and other places including 65 revenue estates of Delhi, Gurugram and Uttarakhand.
Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed Singh's plea seeking a direction on the Union Government to adopt the process of merger, accession or enter into treaty with him for his claimed territory and pay the due compensation to him.
Title: DR. ARUN MOHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1309
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) does not fall within the meaning of “public servant” under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that it is not necessary that all duties which are broadly defined as “public duty” would encompass within itself “public character”.
Case Title: Pratima Tyagi Versus Commissioner Of GST
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1310
The Delhi High Court has held that the decision to cancel the GST registration with retrospective effect must be based on some objective criteria.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on account of non-filing of returns for a period of six months.
Case Title: ATMARAM SARAOGI v. UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1311
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation for using the expression "Union Government" instead of "Central Government" in all legislations, orders, notifications, Rules, executive actions and circulars.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that the two terms can be used interchangeably and it was not a case of PIL.
Title: CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1312
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to “meticulously and expeditiously” look into the allegations of over invoicing of coal imports and equipments by several power companies, including those of Adani Group and Essar Group.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna directed the authorities to “unearth the actual factual position” and take appropriate actions against the erring companies, if any, as per law.
Case Title: COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. State and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1313
The Delhi High Court has constituted a monitoring committee to periodically review the recruitment of public prosecutors for trial courts here.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna said that cases are piling up in the trial courts due to lack of public prosecutors.
Title: NITIN GARG v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1314
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the pleas filed by three accused, in a money laundering case registered against smartphone manufacturer Vivo, alleging illegal custody in Tihar jail for want of judicial order remanding them to judicial custody.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Shailender Kaur rejected the habeas corpus pleas moved by Nitin Garg, Pranay Rai and a Chinese national Guangwen Kuang alias Andrew.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1315
The Delhi High Court had said that the time period of filing written statement, being in the realm of procedural law, can be extended under the Family Courts Act, 1984, if the applicant spells out exceptional circumstances or disability faced by him or her in filing the same.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta however underscored that ordinarily, the time schedule for filing the written statement needs to be followed to deal with family disputes in an expeditious manner.
Title: V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD v. MS MAHAVIR HOME APPLIANCES AND ANR. & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1316
The Delhi High Court is set to decide as to whether a plaintiff in a civil suit would be entitled to complete refund of court fees or only to half of it, where the dispute is settled with the defendant privately, without intervention of any ADR mechanism.
Justice C Hari Shankar referred the question to a division bench, observing that the issue may have to be decided in the light of Sections 16 and Section 16A of the Court Fees Act, as well as different judgments of the Supreme Court and division benches on the issue.
Title: AMRIT LAL WADHERA & ANR. v. SAROJ SUNEJA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1317
The Delhi High Court has said that where the tenant is undeniably absent from the address of tenanted premises, temporarily or permanently, court should make every sincere endeavour to serve summons upon the tenant at an alternate address.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma observed that summoning by way of publication should only be resorted to when the circumstances are such that it leaves no scope for any other course of action.
Title: SHISHIR CHAND v. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1318
The Delhi High Court has said that it has been coming across various cases where the abuse of Right to Information Act, 2005, has led to “paralysis and fear” among Government officials.
“The Act was brought into to provide for secure access to information to every citizen, and to prevent corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable. However, this Court is now seeing increasing abuse/misuse of the RTI Act…,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said.
Title: KUSH KALRA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1319
The Delhi High Court has directed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to amend its recruitment Rules to allow recruitment of women as drivers in the force, within six months.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by Union Government's counsel that it was not possible to give a definite timeline to the court within which the Recruitment Rules for CISF shall be amended.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1320
The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre and the Delhi Government to decide within three months a public interest litigation seeking linking of property documents with Aadhaar by treating it as a representation.
A division bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia disposed of the plea moved by BJP leader and Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, observing that it is a policy issue which has to be decided by the concerned authorities.
Title: BHARAT NAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1321
The Delhi High Court has said that the speech made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on November 22 in Rajasthan's Nadbai against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and calling him, along with Home Minister Amit Shah and Gautam Adami as “pick pocketors”, was “not in good taste.”
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by Advocate Suruchi Suri, the counsel representing Election Commission of India (ECI), that a show cause notice was issued to Gandhi on November 23.
Delhi High Court Constitutes Committee Headed By Retired Judge To Examine Issues Regarding Forests
Case Title: Neeraj Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1322
The Delhi High Court has constituted an inter-departmental committee headed by a retired judge of the court to examine the issues regarding forests in the national capital.
Justice Jasmeet Singh said that for effective discharge of its responsibilities, the Committee may call for any documents from any persons, government or any other official.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1323
While dealing with a divorce case, the Delhi High Court has ruled that having different religious beliefs and not performing certain religious duties per se would not amount to cruelty or would not be sufficient to severe a marital tie.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said that fasting or not fasting on “Karwachauth” may be an individual choice and if dispassionately considered, may not be termed as an act of cruelty.
Title: JASPREET KAUR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1324
The Delhi High Court has said that the FIRs in cases involving sexual assault and rape committed upon minors are not mere printed papers, but a trauma writ large, experienced by a living human being, which is difficult to be portrayed on a piece of paper.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that in cases of sexual assault of minor victims, the extreme stressful situation and life-turning experience faced by a victim should not be dealt with in mechanical manner by courts.
Title: WINZO GAMES PRIVATE LIMITED v. BAJAAR LLC AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1325
The Delhi High Court has restrained a US based company, offering an application “Winzos!” on Apple and Google App Stores and an associated website, from using “Winzo” or “Winzo Games” mark.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also ordered deactivation of www.winzos.com extension on Google Chrome Webstore.
Case Title: PCIT Versus B.L. Kashyap And Sons Ltd.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1326
The Delhi High Court has held that the power to extend the time for submitting audit reports under Section 142(2c) belongs exclusively to the AO and cannot be exercised by CIT.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the Assessing Officer alone has the jurisdiction to extend the deadline for filing audit reports under Section 142(2C); a higher authority, such as the CIT, is not permitted to do so.
Case Title: Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd Versus PCIT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1327
The Delhi High Court has accepted the returned income for 12 years as the limitation period to pass a fresh assessment order has expired.
The bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that the time limit fixed as per Section 153(2)(A) of the Income Tax Act or the time limit fixed by the amended provision, i.e., Section 153(3), as of today, the AO is bereft of jurisdiction and hence would have no legal locus to pass an assessment order.
Case Title: Vasvi Grover v. Manish Grover
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1328
The Delhi High Court has allowed a wife's petition against closure of her right to cross-examine her husband in divorce proceedings, observing that Family Courts must strike a delicate balance between need for expeditious disposal and giving of fair opportunity to a party to present case.
Title: VINOD KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1329
The Delhi High Court has observed that recording of testimony of a prosecutrix in sexual assault cases through “two-way video conferencing facility” is not adverse nor does it amount to denial of accused's right to fair trial or effective cross-examination.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that recording of the victim's testimony will still have to be subjected to the “tradition parameters of reliability” and will be tested on the touchstone of credibility on the basis of cross-examination.
Title: STATE (NCT OF DELHI) THROUGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CRIME-III, DELHI v. SHADAB
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1330
The Delhi High Court has pulled up a Special NDPS judge in the national capital for repeatedly summoning senior police officials and even issuing bailable warrants against a Deputy Commissioner of Police, observing that there was a “complete breach of judicial discipline.”
Justice Amit Bansal said that the judge has been repeatedly passing orders that are in “teeth of a detailed judgment” delivered by a Coordinate Bench where adverse remarks made by the same judge against high-ranking police officials were expunged.
Delhi High Court Order Deputing One Clinical Child Psychologist In Each Family Court Complex
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1331
The Delhi High Court directed its Registrar General to take necessary steps for deputing at least one Clinical Child Psychologist in each Family Court Complex, who would be in a better position to provide counselling sessions to minor children as and when required or as directed in respective cases.
A division bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the report submitted by the Clinical Child Psychologist on evaluation or counselling can be shared with the concerned Family Court in a sealed cover, which would enable such court to form an appropriate opinion for custody or visitation rights in custody cases.
Title: MR. AMANDEEP SINGH DHALL v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT and other connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1332
The Delhi High Court has formed a Committee for giving suggestions to improve the health care facilities in prisons in the national capital, observing that every prison inmate has an inherent right to life and humane treatment.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the committee will also inform the court as to whether facilities are available in the jail hospital to deal with emergency situations such as cardiac arrest and hemorrhages, “as the first few minutes in such eventuality are crucial to save life of a person.”
Delhi High Court Issues Directions For Expeditious Disposal Of Criminal Cases Against MPs, MLAs
Case Title : COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v UNION OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1333
The Delhi High Court has issued directions for expeditious and effective disposal of criminal cases pending in the designated courts against the members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies.
A division bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna directed the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the Rouse Avenue Court to ensure almost equal pendency of the criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the designated courts, at the same level.
Title: TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. KABIR SHANKAR BOSE & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1334
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the information in relation to interception or tapping or tracking of a phone is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
A division bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan said that any order passed by the Government in relation to interception or phone tapping is passed when an authorized officer is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign states or public order, and information on the same would be exempted under RTI Act.
Title: KUNDAN SINGH v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1335
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a convict has the right to parenthood and procreation and such an individual does not become a lesser citizen only due to the incarceration.
“While, Judiciary in Bharat, has always stubbornly refused to hold that prisoners have no fundamental rights, this Court following the same tradition as handed over by judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court respectfully takes the intent to interpret the constitutional rights in favour of upholding and including new situations and challenges holds that right to parenthood and procreation is fundamental right of a convict in peculiar circumstances of a case,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR v. SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1336
The Delhi High Court has accepted a submission that the advice tendered by the Solicitor General of India to the Union Government and government departments is done in the nature of fiduciary, and hence, the disclosure of such information would fall under the exception of Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Justice Subramonium Prasad found no infirmity with Union Government's submission and said and that the relationship between the Solicitor General of India and Government of India is that of a fiduciary and a beneficiary.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1337
The Delhi High Court recently upheld divorce granted to a married couple on the ground of cruelty by the wife, observing that her act of harassing and humiliating the husband publicly and portraying him as a “womanizer” in his office is an act of extreme cruelty to him.
A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that reckless, defamatory, humiliating and unsubstantiated allegations by one spouse, which has the impact of publicly tarnishing the image of the other, is nothing but acts of extreme cruelty.
Case Title: NCLT BAR ASSOCIATION THR ITS SECRETARY GENERAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1338
The Delhi High Court has directed the Union Government to consider on priority basis the proposal for installation of a biometric machine to facilitate the access of lawyers to the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) premises.
A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna also directed the Land and Development Office (L&DO) to process the proposal within eight weeks.
SFIO Not Barred From Investigating IPC Offences, Conducting 'Further Probe': Delhi High Court
Title: R.K. GUPTA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1339
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is not barred from investigating offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or conducting further investigation in accordance with law after the Investigation Report has been submitted.
“From a conjoint and harmonious reading of the relevant provisions of the CrPC and the present Act, as quoted hereinabove, it cannot be said that the SFIO is barred from investigating an offence under the IPC. SFIO is not barred from conducting a ̳further investigation' in accordance with law,” Justice Amit Sharma observed.
Case Title: Freebit AS v. Exotic Mile Private Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1340
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by leading supplier of in-ear products “Freebit AS”, observing that it had suppressed material facts and the suit patent was vulnerable to revocation.
Referring to the High Court of Delhi Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2022, Justice Prathiba M Singh explicated that, “it is necessary, to the extent possible, for a plaint to include details of corresponding foreign patent applications, as well as information relating to any orders passed by a Court or Tribunal concerning the same or substantially similar invention as asserted in the suit.”
Case Title: The Hershey Company v. Atul Jalan trading as Akshat Online Traders
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1341
Taking strict view of the food safety and public health concerns highlighted, the Delhi High Court recently directed detailed investigation into the re-packaging and sale of expired food products in Delhi, including counterfeit chocolates of leading brand Hershey's.
Going through the material brought on record, Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the way in which expired products were being reintroduced into markets appeared to be coordinated and systematic.
Case Title: TV Today Network Limited v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) 9556/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1342
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with orders passed by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, whereby TV Today Network, operator/owner of India Today and Aaj Tak, was directed to run an apology scroll for broadcasting advertisements promoting brand names associated with alcohol produces.
Case details : QUANTUM UNIVERSITY v. INTERNATIONAL QUANTUM UNIVERSITY FOR INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INC O.M.P (COMM) 260/2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1343
The Delhi High Court has held that the ambit of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 strictly restrained the Court from interfering in issues of interpretation of contractual conventions and those matters where the arbitrator is required to be “subjectively satisfied” on questions of facts.
Title: HARISH CHANDER @ SURAJ BHATT v. STATE NCT OF DELHI
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1344
The Delhi High Court has said that the name of any judge or judicial officer used by unscrupulous persons for blackmailing general public or commission of offences brings disrepute to the judicial system, which cannot be allowed at any cost.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that general public should not believe such individuals and give them money, even if they are assured that they will get some work done from within the judicial system by way of some payment.
Case Title: AKSHAT BALDWA & ORS. v. YASH RAJ FILMS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1345
The Delhi High Court has asked the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to consider uploading a fresh copy of actor Shah Rukh Khan starrer “Jawan” film with accessibility features on OTT platforms.
Justice Prathiba M Singh also directed the Ministry to call the producers of the films “Jawan” and “Hi Papa” (yet to be released on OTT) for consultation and to impress upon them the importance of providing the accessibility features at least in the OTT release for the two movies.
Delhi High Court Quashes Decision To Declare Religare Finvest's Account As 'Fraud'
Title: RELIGARE FINVEST LIMITED v. STATE BANK OF INDIA
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1346
The Delhi High Court has recently quashed the decision of State Bank of India (SBI) declaring Religare Finvest's account as “fraud” and including it on the Central Fraud Registry of Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that SBI will be at liberty to take an appropriate action in accordance with law, if so necessitated.
CASE TITLE: SMAAASH LEISURE LTD V. AMBIENCE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1347
The High Court of Delhi has held that a panel of arbitrators consisting of merely 3 persons is not broad-based, therefore, a party cannot be compelled to appoint the arbitrator from such a narrow panel.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Singh also reiterated that mere participation in the arbitral proceedings cannot be constituted as a waiver to application of Section 12(5) of the A&C Act, therefore, a party cannot be precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal merely on ground of participation in the arbitral proceedings, if the objection goes to the root of the matter and renders the arbitrator ineligible.
Case Title: BIKRAMJEET SINGH BHULLAR v. YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1348
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application seeking interim injunction against the streaming and broadcasting of “Shamshera” film in a suit filed by one Bikramjeet Singh Bhullar, claiming that the movie is an infringement of his copyrighted script “Kabu na chhadein Khet.”
Justice Jyoti Singh observed that there can be no copyright in ideas and themes, while clarifying that the observations will not impact the trial or final adjudication of Bhullar's copyright infringement suit on merits.
Case Title: CHANDNI CHOWK SARV VYAPAR MANDAL (REGD.) v. DELHI POLICE THROUGH COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1349
The Delhi High Court has directed the city authorities to ensure that strict vigil and action on day to day basis is taken for removal of encroachments in the non-vending zones of Chandni Chowk area.
A division bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela and Justice Ravinder Dudeja ordered that in case the encroachments are not removed or re-occurs, the Assistant Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) of the concerned zone and SHO of Lahori Gate and Kotwali police stations shall be held personally responsible.
Case Title: PARAMEDICAL TECHNICAL STAFF WELFARE ASSOCIATION OF MCD v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1350
The Delhi High Court has recently said that the policy of mandatorily marking of attendance by the paramedical staff of Municipal Corporation of Delhi on “MCD SMART Mobile Application” is not arbitrary or unfair.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that purchasing or possession of a smart phone is not a compulsion for all employees as they have alternate methods to mark their attendance and can opt to mark themselves present either through the supervisor or any other employee's phone.
Case Title: M/S Sethi Sons (India) Versus Assistant Commissioner And Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1351
The Delhi High Court has held that the refund application was filed twice on the GST portal but could not be uploaded due to technical glitches.
Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Section 115BBE Of Income Tax Act
Case Title: Triveni Enterprises Limited Versus ITO
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1352
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna has observed that Statutory Acts and their provisions are not to be declared unconstitutional on the fanciful theory that power would be exercised in an unrealistic fashion or in a vacuum or on the ground that there is an apprehension of misuse of Statutory Provision or the possibility of abuse of power.
Case Title: Eden Castle School and Anr. v. Govt. Of Nct of Delhi and Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1353
In a petition seeking direction w.r.t. ingress/egress of children from a school located in a colony, the Delhi High Court recently observed that convenience of colony residents cannot outweigh interest of the general public at large.
Notably, the review petition had been filed seeking modification of an earlier order passed by the court, so that parents who brought their child to school in private cars drop them outside the colony, and the petitioner-school provides security guards/personnel for regulation of traffic jam in the colony.
Case Title: Indus Towers Limited v. Sistema Shyam Teleserivices Limited
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1354
While dismissing a Section 34 petition under the Arbitration Act, the Delhi High Court recently observed that the 2G judgment, whereby the Supreme Court quashed the First-Come-First-Serve (“FCFS”) policy, constituted a “change in law” for grant of spectrum/licenses.
Case Title: M/S Aaira Batteries Versus Principal Commissioner Of Department Of Trade Taxes, Government Of NCT Of Delhi
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1355
The Delhi High Court has held that the order cancelling the petitioner's GST registration was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is, thus, liable to be set aside.
The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan has observed that if the petitioner's GST registration is restored, the petitioner would be obliged to update its returns for the period after its GST registration was cancelled.
Case Title: Ministry of Health & Family Welfare and Anr v. M/s Hosmac Projects
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1356
The High Court of Delhi has held that a copy of the signed arbitral award served only on the lawyer or the agent of the party does not constitute a valid delivery in absence of the delivery on the party itself.
Case Title: NEC CORPORATION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S PLUS91 SECURITY SOLUTIONS
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1357
The Delhi High Court has ruled that an arbitral tribunal lacks the authority to grant damages for a breach of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), particularly when the MoU serves as a preliminary agreement to enter into a definitive contract. This is especially significant when the MoU entails no financial implications and includes a clause explicitly preventing any monetary liability for a breach.